According to this story, Iowa Republican Party leaders have decided to hold their presidential caucus on January 3. The decision hasn’t been formally made, but will be formal on October 16.
Reply
George Will has published this column, opposing Pennsylvania SB 1282, the bill to let each U.S. House district choose its own presidential elector. The column also opposes the National Popular Vote Plan bill.
Will implies, but does not directly say, that the founding fathers wouldn’t like the Pennsylvania bill. Historical evidence contradicts that conclusion. In the very first presidential election, 1789, both Virginia and Massachusetts, homes of the first President and first Vice-President, held popular votes for presidential electors in which each U.S. House district chose its own presidential elector. Delaware, which only had one U.S. House member, split itself into three electoral college districts and let each district choose its own elector. In Connecticut, Georgia, New Jersey, and South Carolina, the legislature chose the electors. Three states didn’t choose any presidential electors because they hadn’t ratified the Constitution in time. The only states that chose presidential electors by popular vote at-large were Maryland, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.
Will is also unconvincing when he opposes the National Popular Vote Plan bill. He says the National Popular Vote Plan provides that the president would be elected by a majority vote. This is not true. Currently, the winner of the presidential election frequently only has a plurality, and that would continue to be true under the National Popular Vote Plan. Presidents elected without a majority vote in the past fifty years include Richard Nixon in 1968, Bill Clinton in both 1992 and 1996, and George W. Bush in 2000.
On October 7, the very last day for an appeal to be filed in Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted, the Ohio legislature filed papers to intervene in the case, and to appeal to the 6th circuit. The Secretary of State doesn’t want to appeal, but the legislature does. First the legislature will need to persuade the court to let it intervene. If the legislature is permitted to appeal, then it will ask the 6th circuit to overturn the U.S. District Court order of September 7 that put the party on the 2012 ballot.
The legislature’s action is especially surprising, given that the law passed by the legislature in 2011, HB 194, is now suspended. With HB 194 not in effect, and with the primary set for March instead of May, the statutory deadline for new parties to submit a petition to be on the ballot in 2012 is November 2011, the very same deadline held unconstitutional in 2006 by the 6th circuit. Even if HB 194 weren’t suspended, the deadline would be in December 2011, almost as bad. Furthermore, due process would seem to provide that even if December 2011 were constitutional on its face, such a deadline can’t be imposed on such short notice.
HB 194 is suspended because a referendum petition was recently filed. When new laws are subject to a referendum, they can’t go into effect until the voters vote on the new law. Assuming the referendum petition has enough valid signatures, that vote on HB 194 would be in November 2012.
According to this story, the Kansas Secretary of State’s office has released a new voter registration tally, as of October 1, 2011, and that tally shows that one person in Kansas is registered in Americans Elect. This appears to be the first official registration data in any state that shows any registered voters in Americans Elect. The number in Kansas will surely increase, when Kansas voter registration forms listing Americans Elect as a choice begin to circulate around the state.
The other Kansas totals are: Republican 750,908; Democratic 442,647; Libertarian 10,139; Reform 1,065; independent 487,944.
Other states in which Americans Elect will be listed on voter registration forms soon include Nevada and California. Arizona and Florida do not list the qualified minor parties on the voter registration form. In Alaska, Americans Elect is only a limited political party (i.e., a party that is only on the ballot for the presidential election), and so the Alaska registration form won’t list Americans Elect.
On October 6, a Michigan State Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a recall election set for November 8 should not be held. The Court did not explain its reasoning. Ballots have already been printed. The recall was aimed at state Representative Paul H. Scott, author of a bill that passed this year making it easier to fire teachers. The teachers were the prime force behind the recall petition. The case is Scott v Director of Elections, 306155.
Scott argued that the statement on the recall petitions, explaining why he should be repealed, was untruthful. On September 12 a lower court had ruled that the recall should go ahead, and that it was not the function of a court to determine whether the statement on the petition was true or not. Scott also argued that until his lawsuit over the statement had been settled, elections officials should not have validated the petition. The petition had 11,000 signatures, and elections officials ruled that it had more than enough valid signatures.
No Michigan legislator has been recalled since 1983.